People really seem to struggle with this and I can't figure out why... Like it kind of just reads like astroturfing in every thread. I downloaded agy, purchased a subscription that the splash page said "includes Argon" and it... works?
3.8 flash and argon have been great FYI. Can't tell a difference between any of the claude models I use at work, minus actually being able to read what it writes.
We do a lot to make sure credit cards work all around the world (like we kept supporting cards in India when Apple pulled out due to certain regulations). There could be some issue with your account or card. I could maybe look if you contacted me, but likely I couldn't reply at all.
People don't care enough to leave feedback or ask support after crappy experiences. Especially if the feedback page is hidden deep into some portal. And ad-hoc fixes for single individuals also matter little for the larger scheme of things. Most people just move on to other products that actually take their money.
Sorry to be so whiney, and I'm sure your powers over this are very limited, but google payment messes are widely known and documented and rampant, and apparently with no improvement in sight. Google is really leaving money on the table for not being more proactive with fixing these.
We do what we can to make things better. AI has been doing a lot to find corner cases that get lost. At the scale Google payments operates, things sadly get missed.
And investigating a single issue can sometimes find a corner case we've missed, which is why we regularly do it.
I can tell you that I have a Gemini plus subscription I still don't have anything more recent than 3.6 Flash. In consequence, I never use Gemini anymore, and instead have a PAYG plan on Deep Infra.
> I can tell you that I have a Gemini plus subscription I still don't have anything more recent than 3.6 Flash
Yeah, the newer models are not included in your $5 subscription. You can always pay for a higher tier plan if you want access. What is so shocking about that?
When I paid for the subscription, the latest flash models were available in it. They made no mention about not making any newer flash models available.
I completely get not offering frontier models in the lowest subscription, but not having even a small quota of their most recent flash models is just shitty. I used to be on their Pro plan, and decided to downgrade based on how little I was using it. But now? I don't use it at all, because I have moved on to PAYG open-weight models.
Yep, seriously. We live in a world where OpenAI and Anthropic each have about 60 different products named with variations of "Codex"/"ChatGPT" or "Claude", on top of a model matrix of about 100 different choices of name/version/reasoning level/variant. But somehow Google's comparatively streamlined offerings are impossibly confusing for HN to understand.
"How do I even pay for it?" is particularly baffling to me considering it's literally just included in their normal range of Google One subscriptions that bundle Drive/etc which have been around for years.
You pick a plan and pay for it, and sign in to whichever app you're using like Gemini chat (ChatGPT/Claude Chat) or Antigravity (Codex/Claude Code).
AI Studio is the developer console (OpenAI Platform/Claude Platform). Vertex AI is the Google Cloud enterprise platform (using GPT or Claude models via AWS Bedrock/Azure AI Foundry).
Pretty much every product is a 1:1 equivalent with the same offering from OpenAI/Anthropic + Azure/AWS. Google is both a hyperscaler and an AI lab, so the venn diagram includes both the direct OpenAI/Anthropic products and what they also serve for enterprises via Azure/AWS.
I get that Google does bad stuff and isn't popular on HN which is understandable, but the specific criticisms really don't make sense. The entire AI developer/consumer space is messy and confusing but that's an industry wide complaint not specific to Google unless they should just not compete on certain verticals.
This is how it looks on the marketing pages not in real world.
For example: what is "Antigravity Entitlement"? You can buy whatever subscription (even Ultra or higher) you like and not have access to Antigravity at all. You will have to then go through some nebulous verification process which half the time is just broken. E.g. people in EU were for months blocked from verification by the Google app insisting they message an RCE number in US unreachable from EU carriers. But if you even get that far that’s actually a success. Most of the time it’s just "verification error" with no further explanation. Then you get to try to reach a human at Google. Hahaha, just kidding. That's impossible.
Then even if it works it can just log you out some day randomly and then have you go through all the verification again. Just because. Happened twice already.
Finally you have to consider what is the potential fallout of Google deciding you did some hacking or said to AI something politically incorrect and banning your entire account and all your (or even your family’s) connected accounts.
If you have anything important on Google you need to first degoogle before considering using their AI services or you're playing with fire.
The models are good but the risk to benefit ratio is terrible.
Like millions of people, I had a free Google Apps account for my family. I upgraded it to a paid Google Workspace when the free tier was terminated by Google because my dad actually uses it for some work features.
I can’t purchase any Google consumer products now, because this “family” account is now an “enterprise” and… there’s just no way. It can’t be done. No. Just… go away. Shoo…
I can’t get a YouTube “family” account.
I can’t get an Antigravity personal account.
Nothing works.
Google insists that I upgrade the entire organisation, or nothing. I can’t get an AI plan for just one “employee”!
It’s doubly stupid because like millions of people, I initially subscribed as a non-business and was forced to convert by Google!
Yep. I have to maintain a separate consumer gmail/google account for this exact reason. I end up paying for some things twice, such as Google Photos since I want those photos synced to my "enterprise" account. I've had this thing, like you, since it was free and somehow I'm now paying nearly $30/month for two people to have Email and storage for that email.
Meanwhile, Microsoft allows enterprise accounts to purchase products for only a subset of their accounts instead of big-bang upgrading the "entire org".
With Microsoft, an org can mix and match E3, E5, or E7 licensing tiers on a per-user basis. Which makes sense, because not every employee is "the same"! This is just obvious if you stop and think about for more than a fraction of a second. As a random example, I work with an org in "transport". Their backoffice staff have a bunch of advanced cloud app licenses, their bus drivers do not, because their job isn't sitting in front of a PC all day!
You absolutely can mix Google Workspace licences but you either need to go via the Google sales team or via an Google services partner.
And to be honest, I understand the reasoning, Google Workspace is supposed to be simpler to operate in comparison to Microsoft 365, and simple means a single licencing choice.
If you're at the scale where you need to worry about mixing and matching licences, you're at the scale where you should be looking at either an enterprise contract or going through a partner, otherwise you're going to be paying list price.
It sucks for people who can handle the complexity, but also as someone who has spent far too time in Microsoft licencing conversations and contract talks, Microsoft licencing is painfully complex (some licencing is across the whole tenant, some spend is consumption based billing against Azure, some licencing is requires a minimum amount against a %age of your total M365 user base, and then don't get me started on licencing machine users or multiplexing).
It sounds like you’re a Google employee making excuses for what I consider abject failure to implement “advanced features” like… a drop-down list… per user instead of per org.
Partners or resellers have no reason to exist as a part of this trivial database design concern.
It’s a category error of the highest order to assume that only “largest enterprises” want or need per-user product licensing control. If anything, it’s the smallest orgs that need to be frugal at this level of granularity.
The relatively high cost of AI subscriptions just makes this error much more obvious, impossible to ignore or pretend is “actually better somehow”.
Because, you know, everyone would rather pay $200/mo so that even their gardener and the bus driver has an “Ultra” AI subscription than spend even ten minutes in a web portal assigning that license only to the sole developer on the payroll!
Homes need more whimsey. I recently discovered one of my interior doorways is actually a stone archway that someone had squared off, drywalled and installed a cheap hollow door for no apparent reason. Working with a stonemason to re-point/parge it and bring it back to glory. Will I ever see a return on this investment? Probably not but fuck it it'll make my house just that much cooler.
Nobody can afford whimsey anymore because if you are doing anything invasive enough to involve permits then any sort of deviation from the "megacorp cookie cutter" aesthetic becomes a scrutinized liability.
While I get that, it's not like there's not a number of safety concerns with an underground tunnel. Flooding and collapse come to mind as some of the biggest potential problems.
Unfortunately, whimsy and safety are often in conflict with one another.
To you it will. To the next buyer it's a liability. In a world where paying off a mortgage was a possibility, this was fine. Now you're beholden to the median desires of the real estate market with every decision you make on your house.
Indeed it depends where you're at on the ladder. First time home buyer hoping to move up lands squarely in A if you have any sense at all. The goal of course being B when you're in deep equity after decades.
However your comment is confusing because you are replying to a sentence about ⓑ, but you're talking about ⓐ.
A big house is sold to people as an investment in future value (ⓐ).
More importantly a big house is often driven by a not-so-hidden desire to show off to others a massive status symbol (a tragic McMansion), and high status is also ⓐ.
Of course a big house can be ⓑ: but it is less common to see crazy money spent on large whims (assuming having enough wealth to be able to burn pointless dollars).
Sorry if I'm mansplaining - but I just don't understand why you'd say something so obvious, while implying something so disconnected.
A ⓑ house can have a high valuation. The thesis of the dichotomy is about intent, not about outcomes. And we often have mixed intents so it isn't as black&white as I stated it.
How is the stone wall that's been holding up my house for over 100 years a liability? You know it's still there even when it's covered with drywall right?
> I recently discovered one of my interior doorways is actually a stone archway that someone had squared off, drywalled and installed a cheap hollow door for no apparent reason.
£50 to a spat out smartie says that was done in the 1960's, when the fashion was for everything to look smooth and modern.
We had a home with marvelous 1830's wooden panneling that was hidden behind thin sheets of plywood (presumably in the 1960's) that had been nailed over it to provide a smooth look.
Look up Barry Bucknell, a.k.a. Bodger Bucknell, he's responsible for a lot of this stuff. He was a nice guy and meant well, but he also caused an awful lot of damage.
The trick is to have your gateway handle authn, and then proxy authz data upstream so those services can decide how to handle it without needing to make a second call to the identity service.
You probably want to have a UI for account creation and password resets, right? There's a frontend that has to talk directly to identity service.
You may want to bill based on # of active users - well that's interactive with the identity service (you can do this without billing calling the identity services' API, but the alternatives are just other common dependencies.
You may want a tool for the support team to search identity service to find a user or their account status.
If you have a sharing feature, you may want that to verify you are sharing with an account that exists.
The way I've set these things up, nothing talks directly to the identity service. The ID service is a backend behind your gateway like any other service and any UI would have to have the request proxied through the gateway to reach it. Now, you can carve out certain rules (if you control the gateway) where requests headed to /users/* don't require the same authN steps other requests do because it's already headed to the ID server. Internal UIs may or may not work the same, that's really up to you - they won't likely be super high scale. Often the support teams won't even be querying the real DB, but instead a view or copy so they can't affect real user data. A share code for users A->B would just be a request from the UI to the ID server via the gateway, authenticated as User A, and responding with the code for B if possible. Or, I've do it where you could have special logic in the gateway to query 2 servers and combine the responses. No need for services to make requests sideways. Hope that makes sense.
The trick I've used is the N1 (gateway) service handles all AuthN and proxies that information to the upstream services to allow them to handle AuthZ. N+ services only accept requests signed by N1 - the original authentication info is removed.
Treating N4 as a service is fair. I think the article was leaning more toward that idea of N4 being a database, which is a legit bad idea with microservices (if fact defeating the point entirely). My takeaway is that if you're going to have a service that many other services depend on, you can do it but you need to be highly away of that brittleness. Your N4 service needs to be bulletproof. Netflix ran into this exact issue with their distributed cache.
reply